40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  40m Log, Page 137 of 339  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Author Type Category Subjectup
  2038   Thu Oct 1 19:04:05 2009 KojiUpdateMZMZ work done (Re: MZ Work from 13:00-)

MZ work has been done. I did not change anything on the circuit.

Recently we observed that the MZ PZT output was sticking at a certain voltage. I found the reason.
Shortly to say "we must return the PZT Ramp offset to 0, after the lock"

I am going to write a MZ auto lock script someday, to do it automatically.


According to the resister values used in the circuit, the PZT HV output voltage is determined by the following formula:

V_PZT = 150 - 12 V_ctrl - 24 Vramp

Here the ramp voltage Vramp moves from -10V to +10V, the feedback control voltage V_ctrl moves from -13V to +13V.
The baseline offset of 150V is provided in the circuit board.

When V_ramp is 0, V_PZT runs from 0 to 300. This is just enough for the full scale of the actual V_PZT range,
that is 0V~280V.

If any Vramp offset is given, V_PZT rails at either side of the edges. This limits the actual range of the PZT out.

This is not nice, but is what happened recently.

Quote:

I will investigate the MZ board. I will unlock MZ (and MC).

 

Attachment 1: MZ_PZT.pdf
MZ_PZT.pdf
  2021   Tue Sep 29 21:37:09 2009 ranaUpdateMZMZ work done : some noise checking

Since we used to run with a gain slider setting of +15 dB on the MZ, I wanted to check that the new setting of +30dB was OK. It is.

To check it I turned it up and looked for some excess noise in the ISS or in the MC. There was none. I also set the input offset slider by unlocking the PMC and zeroing the mixer monitor readback. The new slider setting is -6.5V.

I don't know why we would need more gain on the MZ loop, but we can have some if we want it by turning up the gain before the servo (optical or RF). The attached plot shows the MC_F and ISS signals with the ISS loop on and off. There was no change in either of these spectra with the MZ gain high or low.

Attachment 1: fsm.pdf
fsm.pdf
  2022   Tue Sep 29 21:51:32 2009 KojiUpdateMZMZ work done : some noise checking

The previous "+15" was Vctrl = 0.25 [V]. Which was +18 dB.

Quote:

Since we used to run with a gain slider setting of +15 dB on the MZ, I wanted to check that the new setting of +30dB was OK.

 

  1244   Thu Jan 22 11:54:09 2009 AlbertoConfigurationPSLMach Zehnder Output Beam QPD
I rotated by 180 degrees the 10% beam splitter that it is used to fold the beam coming from the Mach Zehnder (directed to the MC) on to the QPD.

The alignment of the beam with that QPD has so been lost. I'll adjust it later on.

The rotation of the BS had the (surprising) effect of amplifying the Absolute Length experiment's beat by 9 times. Maybe because of a polarizing effect of the Beam Splitter which could have increased the beating efficiency between the PSL and the NPRO beams?
  1922   Tue Aug 18 01:16:01 2009 JenneUpdatePSLMach Zehnder is realigned

The Mach Zehnder and I got to know each other today.  The reason for redoing the alignment was to improve pointing from the PSL table into the MC/IFO in hopes that this would solve the MC unlocking problems that we've been having lately.  Since Rana had aligned the IOO QPDs a few weeks ago when all of the alignments and things were good, I used them as a reference for my Mach Zehnder alignment activities. 

 
The order of operations were approximately as follows:

1. Block the secondary (west) arm of the Mach Zehnder using either an aluminum or razor dump.

2. Use SM1 in the MZ to align the beam to the IOO_QPDs (Pos and Ang).  I unfortunately also touched BS2 at this juncture, which made the refl path no longer a reference.

3.  Make sure that the QPD Sum on both Pos and Ang was sensible.  Since there are 2 beamsplitters in a Mach Zehnder, the power on the QPDs should be a quarter when only one beam is on them.  Be careful not to allow the beam no clip on anything.  The biggest problem was the bottom periscope mirror - if you hit it too high or too low, since it is a very thick optic, you end up coming out its side!  This is the frosty part on the edges, totally inappropriate for beams to go through!  Since the side of the periscope mirror isn't HR coated, when going through it like this, I was able to saturate the QPDs.  Not so good. 

4. Also, make sure that this first beam is on the MZ Refl PD.  Do this using the steering optics after the beam has left the MZ.  Use a viewer to look at the PD, and see the small spot of the beam on the diode.  We closed the iris which is present and was standing fully open to remove a spurious beam which was a parallel split-off of the main beam.  Since it was very weak, it is fine.

5.  Unblock the west arm, and block the east arm of the MZ.

6. Align this arm to both the IOO QPDs and the MZ refl diode using the adjustments on BS1, the PZT mirror and if necessary, BS2.  Note that the adjust knobs on the PZT mirror have lock screws.  Make sure to unlock them before adjusting, and relock afterward, to avoid slipping while the PZT is moving.

7.  Unblock all the beams, and make sure there is only one spot both on the transmission side and the reflection side, i.e. the 2 spots from the 2 arms are completely overlapping.  For the Trans side, make sure to look both in the near field and the far field (even after the periscope) to ensure that you really have one spot, instead of just the 2 spots crossing at a single location.

8.  Look at the MZ refl DC out and the PD out from the ISS box (which is essentially MZ trans, looking at Morag and Siobhan) on a 'scope.

9.  Touch / gently wiggle BS1 or another optic, and watch the 'scope.  At the same time, adjust BS1, the PZT mirror and BS2 to maximize the contrast between light and dark fringes.  Ideally, the refl PD should go almost to zero at the dark fringes.

10.  Check that you still have only one overlapping beam everywhere, and that you're actually hitting the MZ refl PD.

11. Because I was concerned about clipping while still figuring out the status of the lower periscope mirror, I removed the beam pipe holders between the last optic before the periscope, and the lower periscope mirror.  The beam pipe had already been removed, this was just the pedestals and the snap-in clamps.

All done for now!  Still to be done:  Optimize the position of the EOMs.  There is a waveplate out front and the EOMs are mounted in such a way that they can be moved in several directions, so that we can optimize the alignment into them.  They ideally only should see a single polarization, in order to apply solely a phase modulation on the beam.  If the input polarization isn't correct, then we'll get a bit of amplitude modulation as well, which on PDs looks like a cavity length change.  Also, the little blue pomona-type box which has the RF signals for the EOMs needs to be clamped to the table with a dog clamp, or better yet needs to be moved underneath the PSL table, with just the cables coming up to the EOMs.  The SMA connections and the SMA cable kept interfering with the MZ refl beam...it's a wonder anyone ever made the beam snake around those cables the way they were in the first place. Right now, the box is sitting just off the side of the table, just inside the doors.

 
Something else that Rana and I did while on the table:  We moved the PMC trans optics just a teensy bit toward the PSL door (to the east) to avoid coming so unbelievably close to the MZ refl optics.  The PMC trans beam shown in the lowest part of my sketch was very nearly clipping on the MZ refl steering optic just near it.  This situation isn't totally ideal, since (as it has been in the past), the first optic which is dedicated to the PMC trans isn't fully sitting on the PSL table.  The pedestal needs to hang off the edge of the table a bit to keep this beam from clipping.  Unfortunately there really isn't space to make a better beam path.  Since we're planning on getting rid of the MZ when the upgrade happens, and this isn't causing us noticeable trouble right now, we're going to let it stay the way it is.

Also, we dumped the reflection from the PMC RFPD onto a razor blade dump. And we noticed that the PZT mirror and BS2 in the MZ are badly vibrationally sensitive. BS2 has a ~400 Hz resonance (which is OK) but a ~150 ms ringdown time!! PZT mirror is similar.

Q = pi * f * tau = 200!  Needs some damping.

Attachment 1: MachZehnderOptics2.pdf
MachZehnderOptics2.pdf
  618   Tue Jul 1 21:45:48 2008 JohnUpdatePSLMach Zehnder script and screen
I've edited C1: PSL_MACH_ZEHNDER.adl and /cvs/cds/caltech/scripts/PSL/MZ/lockMZ
to reflect the changes described in entry #616.
  2406   Sun Dec 13 20:50:45 2009 ranaSummaryIOOMach Zender Calibration

I ramped the MZ PZT (with the loop disabled on the input switch) to calibrate it. Since the transmission has been blocked, I used the so-called "REFL" port of the MZ to do this.

The dark-to-dark distance for the MZ corresponds to 2 consecutive destructive interferences. Therefore, that's 2 pi in phase or 1 full wavelength of length change in the arm with the moving mirror.

Eyeballing it on the DTT plot (after lowpassing at 0.1 Hz) and using its cursors, I find that the dark-to-dark distance corresponds to 47.4 +/- 5 seconds.

So the calibration of the MZ PZT is 88 +/- 8 Volts/micron.

Inversely, that's a mean of 12 nm / V.

why am I calibrating the MZ? Maybe because Rob may want it later, but mainly because Koji won't let me lock the IFO.

Apparently, we haven't had a fast channel for any of the MZ board. So I have temporarily hooked it up to MC_DRUM at 21:13 and also turned down the HEPA. Now, let's see how stable the MZ and PMC really are overnight.

EDIT: it railed the +/- 2V ADCwe have so I put in a 1:4 attenuator via Pomona box. The calibration of MC_DRUM in terms of MZ_PZT volts is 31.8 cts/V.

So the calibration of MC_DRUM1 in meters is: 0.38 nm / count


Attachment 1: Untitled.png
Untitled.png
  1151   Fri Nov 21 16:11:26 2008 rana, alberto, robUpdatePSLMach Zender alignment
The Mach Zender's dark port DC voltage had gone up too high (~0.5 V)and was turning yellow
on the screen. I re-aligned by touching the knobs on the 166 MHz path. Doing alignment after the
166 EOM had very little effect. The main improvement came from doing yaw on the turning mirror
just ahead of the 166 MHz EOM; this is the one which as no adjustment knobs (duh).

During this procedure, I had the MC off, the ISS off, and the MC autolocker off. After finishing
the alignment, the power on the ISS PDs had railed and the dark port power was ~0.29 V. So we
put in a ND0.2 on the ISS path and now the voltages are OK (~2 V on each PD). We have to remove the
ND filters and change the first ISS turning mirror into a ~10-20% reflector.


So now the MZ alignment seems good; Alberto is on the MC periscope alignment like a cheap suit.
Attachment 1: PB210051-1.JPG
PB210051-1.JPG
  1155   Fri Nov 21 20:29:43 2008 rana, alberto, robUpdatePSLMach Zender alignment

Quote:
So now the MZ alignment seems good; Alberto is on the MC periscope alignment like a cheap suit.


And alignment is now mostly done - MC locks on the TEM00.
                 REFL_DC

Unlocked           4.50  V
Locked noWFS       1.30  V
Locked + WFS       0.42  V
and the 29.5 MHz modulation depth is really small.

We should be able to rerun the Wiener analysis on this weekends MC data.

I don't know what our nominal StochMon numbers now are, but after Alberto tweaks up the alignment he can tell us if the RFAM has gotten any better.
  1160   Mon Nov 24 17:14:44 2008 ranaUpdatePSLMach Zender trends
It looks like the MZ has gotten less drifty after the alignment on Friday.
Attachment 1: Untitled.png
Untitled.png
  293   Fri Feb 1 17:17:05 2008 JohnSummaryPSLMach-Zender tweaking
I helped Rob adjust the alignment of the Mach-Zender to try and reduce any AM on the laser light. Our goal was to reduce the large offsets in the DD signals.

We reduced the MZ refl from 0.54 to 0.39. We were able to re-lock the mode cleaner without problems. We then centred the WFS heads.

No change in the DD signal offsets.
  7418   Thu Sep 20 08:50:14 2012 MashaUpdateMachineLearningMachine Learning Update

 Hi everyone,

I've been working a bit on neural network code for a controller, and thus far I have code that creates a reference plant neural network. This is necessary to perform a gradient-descent learning algorithm on a controller neural network (one that reads an error signal and outputs actuation force). Because the error signal is read after the previous output of the controller neural network has passed through the plant, in order to calculate the gradient, either the inverse of the plant needs to be calculated, or the plant can be simulated through a neural network, and the error signal can thus be back-propagated through the plant neural network to find the gradient with respect to the output (as opposed to with respect to the plant), and thus back-propagated through the controller network in order to learn. 

I have uploaded to my directory a directory neural_plant. The most important file is reference_plant.c, which compiles with the command

 gcc reference_plant.c -o reference_plant -lfann -lm

The code runs on a file called reference_plant.data, which consists of a series of delayed inputs i_1, i_2, i_3 ... i_{n - 1} of the plant signals and then an output that is i_{n}, the subsequent signal. Parallel streams may also be used, if more than one signal is to be read. The top of the file must contain the number of total training packets (input-output groups), followed by the number of inputs, and the number of outputs. reference_plant.c also has constant variables which specify the number of hidden neurons, which can be changed. 

 
All of this code runs on the FANN library. If the code doesn't seem to be compiling, then it means the library might have to be downloaded and built from source.
 
Thus far, I have created my own plant in simulink (the driven, damped harmonic oscillator, as before), and obtained results of 0.0002929292 training MSE after 5 epochs (subsequently lowered to 0.000)  and 0.000 training error. This, however, is due to the fact that my plant is overly simple, and seems only to need 3 time-delayed plant signals, rather 31 to specify it (since all motion is second-order). 
 
It should be fairly easy to use interferometer signals as input to this plant by just reading some signals and parsing them into time-delayed groups. (I tried this over the summer with my previous code, and it seemed to work, although I haven't accessed any of the channels to obtain data lately). 
 
In terms of LIGO stuff this week, I'm going to be finishing up (writing) my final report, but please let me know if you have any comments or concerns. 
 
Thanks!
  14164   Wed Aug 15 12:15:24 2018 gautamUpdateCOCMacroscopic SRC length for SR tuning

Summary:

It looks like we can have a stable SRC of length 4.044 m without getting any new mirrors, so this is an option to consider in the short-term.

Details:

  • The detailed calculations are in the git repo
  • The optical configuration is:
    • A single folding mirror approximately at the current SR3 location.
    • An SRM that is ~1.5m away from the above folding mirror. Which table the SRM goes on is still an open question, per the previous elog in this thread. 
  • The SRC length is chosen to be 4.044 m, which is what the modeling tells us we need for operating in the SR tuning instead of RSE.
  • Using this macroscopic length, I found that we could use a single folding mirror in the SRC, and that the existing (convex) G&H folding mirrors, which have a curvature of -700m, happily combine with our existing SRM (concave with a curvature of 142m) to give reasonable TMS and mode-matching to the arm cavity.
  • The existing SRM transmission of 10% may not be optimal but Kevin's calculations say we should still be able to see some squeezing (~0.8 dB) with this SRM.
  • Attachment #1 - corner plot of the distribution of TMS for the vertical and horizontal modes, as well as the mode-matching (averaged between the two modes) between the SRC and arm cavity.
  • Attachment #2 - histograms of the distributions of RoCs and lengths used to generate Attachment #1. The distributions were drawn from i.i.d Gaussian pdfs.

gautam 245pm: Koji pointed out that the G&H mirrors are coated for normal incidence, but looking at the measurement, it looks like the optic has T~75ppm at 45 degree incidence, which is maybe still okay. Alternatively, we could use the -600m SR3 as the single folding mirror in the SRC, at the expense of slightly reduced mode-matching between the arm cavity and SRC.

Attachment 1: SRC_MCMC_shortTerm.pdf
SRC_MCMC_shortTerm.pdf
Attachment 2: SRC_dists_shortTerm.pdf
SRC_dists_shortTerm.pdf
  6991   Thu Jul 19 02:14:37 2012 JenneUpdateVIDEOMade a video gui

I learned a little bit of python scripting while looking at the videoswitch script, and I made a video medm screen. 

Each monitor has a dropdown menu for all the common cameras we use (medm only lets you put a limited # of lines on a dropdown menu...when we want to add things like OMCR or RCT, we'll need to add another dropdown set)

Each monitor also has a readback to tell you what is on the TV.  So far, the quads only say "QUAD#", not what the 4 components are. 

I put a set of epics inputs in the PEM model, under a subsystem with top-names VID to represent the different monitors.  The readbacks on the video screen look at these, with the names corresponding to the numbers listed in the videoswitch script.  The videoswitch script now does an ezcawrite to these epics inputs so that even if you change the monitors via command line, the screen stays updated.

For example, since MC2F's camera is plugged in to Input #1 of the video matrix, if you type "./videoswitch MON1 MC2F", the script will write a "1" to the channel "C1:VID-MON1", and the screen will show "MC2F" in the Mon1 cartoon.

This required a quick recompile of the PEM model, but not the framebuilder since these were just epics channels.

There is also a dropdown menu for "Presets", which right now only include my 2 arm locking settings.

All of the dropdowns just call an iteration of the videoswitch script.

  1497   Sun Apr 19 11:51:05 2009 josephbUpdateCamerasMafalda may need an update

I tried installing libusb-dev on mafalda in order to try getting the usb frame grabber to work on it, but could not as it could not download the package.

I then tried to do a sudo apt-get update, which failed completely, as the repository seems to have ceased existing.  Basically I had all 404 Not Found errors.

Turns out Mafalda is still running Ubuntu 7.04, whose support ended late 2008.  So there's a couple things that can be done:

1) Ignore it, and simply not update Mafalda anymore.  This also means some newer software and hardware simply won't work with it (like the usb frame grabber)

2) Try to find another, unofficial repository which still has all of the Ubuntu 7.04 packages.

3) Upgrade to a newer, still supported Ubuntu, such as 7.10, 8.04, or 8.10.

I'd personally lean towards the 3rd option, and go to the 8.04 long term support version.  If people agree with it, I could do the upgrade sometime Monday or Tuesday.

 

 

  1499   Mon Apr 20 11:57:27 2009 robUpdateCamerasMafalda may need an update

Quote:

I tried installing libusb-dev on mafalda in order to try getting the usb frame grabber to work on it, but could not as it could not download the package.

I then tried to do a sudo apt-get update, which failed completely, as the repository seems to have ceased existing.  Basically I had all 404 Not Found errors.

Turns out Mafalda is still running Ubuntu 7.04, whose support ended late 2008.  So there's a couple things that can be done:

1) Ignore it, and simply not update Mafalda anymore.  This also means some newer software and hardware simply won't work with it (like the usb frame grabber)

2) Try to find another, unofficial repository which still has all of the Ubuntu 7.04 packages.

3) Upgrade to a newer, still supported Ubuntu, such as 7.10, 8.04, or 8.10.

I'd personally lean towards the 3rd option, and go to the 8.04 long term support version.  If people agree with it, I could do the upgrade sometime Monday or Tuesday.

 

 

 

I don't see a reason to proliferate operating systems.  Is there any reason we actually need Ubuntu? Can we put CentOS on it?

  1501   Mon Apr 20 18:36:37 2009 ranaUpdateCamerasMafalda may need an update
Sadly, the sensoray crap doesn't seem to build on CentOS. I too would prefer a homogenous solution,
but I don't know how to make this happen without punishing Joe with sensoray driver development on CentOS.
  3714   Thu Oct 14 10:29:33 2010 josephbUpdateComputersMafalda ready for NDS2, updated Rosalba, Rossa repos

At John Zweizig's request, I installed a couple of packages from the lscsoft repository, along with libtools, automake, autoconf, and several kerberos packages, including cyrus-sasl, cyrus-sasl-lib, cyrus-sasl-devel, cyrus-sasl-gssapi, and krb5-libs.  All it needs now is John to come down and install the NDS2 server.

I copied the lscsoft.repo file from /etc/yum.conf.d/ on allegra to mafalda, as well as rosalba and rossa, just for completeness.  I also added the epel repository to rossa and installed the yum-priorities package and set the priorities on rossa's repositories. 

  345   Thu Feb 28 16:19:37 2008 josephbConfigurationComputersMafalda rewired and multiple cameras running
1) Mafalda is now connected via an orange Cat5E ethernet cord to the gigabit ethernet switch in rack in the office space. It has been labeled at both ends with "mafalda".

2) Both the GC650M camera (from MIT) and the GC750M are working. I can run the sampleviewer code and get images simultaneously. Unforutnately, the fps on both cameras seems to drop roughly in half (not an exact measurement) when displaying both simultaneously at full resolution.

3)Discovered the Gigabit ethernet card in Mafalda doesn't support jumbo packets (packets of up to 9k bytes), which is what they recommend for optimum speed.

4)However, connecting the cameras through only gigabit switches to Mafalda did seem to increase the data rate anyways, roughly by a factor of 2. (Used to take about 80 seconds to get 1000 frames saved, now takes roughly 40 seconds).

5)Need to determine the bottleneck on the cameras. It may be the ethernet card, although its possible to connect multiple gigabit cards to single computer (depending on the number of PCI slots it has). Given the ethernet cards are cheap ($300 for 20) compared to even a single camera (~$800-1500), it might be worth while outfitting a computer with multiple.
  1183   Sun Dec 7 16:02:46 2008 ranaUpdateGeneralMag 5.1 EQ halfway to Vegas
There was a Mag 5.1 EQ Friday night at 8:18 PM.

It tripped most of our optics. They all damped down passively except for MC2. Further more, ITMY seems to have come back to a different place.

Don't know why MC2 was so upset but I think maybe its watchdog didn't work correctly and the side loop is unstable when there are
large motions. After I lowered the side gain by 10x and waited a few minutes it came back OK and the MC locked fine.

I have just now put all the WDs into the Shutdown state so that we can collect some hours of free swinging data to see if there's been
any damage. Feel free to redamp the optics whenever you need them. Someone should do the eigenfrequency check in the morning and compare
with our table of frequencies in the wiki.

I excited the optics using the standard SUS/freeswing-all.csh script. Here's the output:
Excited all optics
Sun Dec  7 16:07:32 PST 2008
Attachment 1: g.png
g.png
Attachment 2: Untitled.png
Untitled.png
  1513   Thu Apr 23 21:13:37 2009 YoichiSummaryEnvironmentMag. 4 earthquake in LA tripped the watchdogs of the most optics
So far, no damage is noticeable.
restoreWatchdog script was useful Smile
-------------------------------------------------------
Magnitude    4.0
Date-Time    * Friday, April 24, 2009 at 03:27:50 UTC
             * Thursday, April 23, 2009 at 08:27:50 PM at epicenter 
Location     33.910N, 117.767W
Depth	     0 km (~0 mile) (poorly constrained)
Region	     GREATER LOS ANGELES AREA, CALIFORNIA
-------------------------------------------------------
  4120   Thu Jan 6 00:06:01 2011 JenneUpdateIOOMagical absorbing PZT mirror

[Kiwamu, Jenne]

We have a measely 465mW going into the MC.  We lose a boatload of power on the PZT mirror that is part of the last zigzag for steering into the MC.  Just before this mirror, we measure 1.21W .  Just after this mirror, we measure ~475mW.  Then a teeny bit gets picked off for the PSL POS/ANG.  But we're losing a factor of 3 on this one mirror.  Need to fix!!!!!!!!!

  3100   Wed Jun 23 11:25:14 2010 Katharine and SharmilaUpdateWIKI-40M UpdateMaglev

Weekly update


Lab work

We compared the magnetic field strength for 4 magnets in the original setup. The standard deviation was 3.15 G which corresponds to a variation of 2.4%. We had encountered difficulties with the stability of the Gaussmeter. The tip of the Gaussmeter was unsteady and wobbling which led to huge variations for a small change in distance. We stabilized the meter by taping it to a pencil and securing it with wire ties to an aluminum block. We then used translation stages to find the point of maximum field strength for each magnet, which allowed us much more stable readings.

Readings

We are reading and learning about feedback control systems. 

Modelling

Learning to model in Comsol. Our goals for the 1X1 model include incorporating the gravitational force in the measurements and find the distance for which attraction is the strongest, and experimenting with the mesh density and boundary conditions of the domain.

Meetings/seminars

Attended many meetings, including:
Laser safety training
SURF safety training
LIGO seminars
Journal club
LIGO experimental group meeting

  3212   Wed Jul 14 01:05:27 2010 Sharmila,KatharineSummaryelogMaglev

Yesterday we hooked up the Quadrant Maglev control to the power supply to test the components in the Input/Output part of the circuit.

The output from the buffer was an unexpected high noise signal which was caused by some circuit components.

Consequently these were replaced/removed after confirming the source of noise.

The following is a story of how it was done.


To test the components of input/output, we measured the output across TP_PD3(Test Point -Photo Diode 3).
We got a high noise signal with a frequency of several kHz.

We tested the values of various electronic components. The resistances R5 and R6 did not measure as mentioned(each had a value of 50 K in the schematic). The value of R6 was 10 K and we replaced R5 with a 10 K resistor. We still got the noise signal at 5.760 kHz with a Pk-Pk voltage of 2.6 V. The resistors in R-LED measured 1.5 K instead of the marked 2.2 K.

P7120278.JPG
We had three suspects in hand:

  • BUF634P : A buffer from the Sallen-Key filter to the LED.
  • C24 : A capacitor which is a part of the Sallen-Key filter.
  • C23 : A capacitor in the feedback circuit of the Sallen-Key filter.


BUF634P : The data sheet for the BUF634P instructed a short across the 1-4 terminals in the presence of capacitive load.  We followed this to overcome the effect(if any) of the extra-long BNC cables which we were using. The oscilloscope still waved 'Hi!' at a few kHz. We removed the buffer and also the feedback resistor R42 from the circuit, what we were testing boiled down to measuring the output of the Sallen-Key filter. The output still contained the funny yet properly periodic signal at a few kHz.      

.P7120284.JPG    


C24: Removing C24 did not do any good.

C23: As a final step C23 was removed. And ... We got a stable DC at 9.86 V(almost stable DC with a low noise at a few MHz). C24 and the buffer were replaced and output seemed fine. The output was a high frequency sine wave which was riding on a DC of 9.96 V.

 

P7120281.JPG


We rechecked if the LED was on and the infrared viewer gave a positive signal.



We went ahead obtaining the transfer function of the feedback control for which we used a spectrum analyzer.

The input for feedback system is a photo current whereas the spectrum analyzer tests the circuit with a voltage impulse.  Hence the voltage input from the spectrum analyzer needs to be converted into current of suitable amplitude(few microamps) for testing the spectrum analyzer.  Similarly the output which is a coil current needs to be changed to a voltage output through a load for feeding into the channel of the spectrum analyzer. We used a suitable resistance box with BNC receiving ends to do this. We obtained a plot for the transfer function which is shown below.

P7140292.JPG


Future plans:

- Check the calculated transfer functions with the plot of the spectrum analyzer

- Model the entire(OSEM, magnet, actuators etc.) system in Simulink and calculate the overall transfer function

- Stable levitation of the 1X1 system

  3250   Tue Jul 20 11:55:15 2010 Sharmila,KatharineUpdateelogMaglev

We plotted the transfer functions for the maglev control circuit and compared them with the plots from the spectrum
analyzer. We were stuck for sometime because

1) we had wrongly entered the value of one of the resistors which was off by a factor of 2000.
2) The plots were not done in right units. So we couldn't figure out differences quite well.

The two plots are shown below. We are still off by a factor of 3 which we'll figure out soon.

P7140292.JPG

  3305   Wed Jul 28 12:09:06 2010 Sharmila,KatharineUpdateWIKI-40M UpdateMaglev

We have modeled our maglev setup in simulink but we have a few corrections to make since the system goes into undamped oscillations for an impulse in the input.

We have made a stable mount for the system and started to work on the 2X2 system using this mount. We have to figure out a way to match the magnets with the gain. We have attached the simulink block.

Picture_1.png

  14262   Mon Oct 22 15:19:05 2018 SteveUpdateVACMaglev controller serviced

Gautam & Steve,

Our controller is back with Osaka maintenace completed. We swapped it in this morning.

Quote:

TP-1 Osaka maglev controller  [  model TCO10M,  ser V3F04J07 ]  needs maintenance. Alarm led  on indicating  that we need Lv2 service.

The turbo and the controller are in good working order.

*****************************

Hi Steve,

Our maintenance level 2 service price is $...... It consists of a complete disassembly of the controller for internal cleaning of all ICB’s, replacement of all main board capacitors, replacement of all internal cooling units, ROM battery replacement, re-assembly, and mandatory final testing to make sure it meets our factory specifications. Turnaround time is approximately 3 weeks.

  RMA 5686 has been assigned to Caltech’s returning TC010M controller. Attached please find our RMA forms. Complete and return them to us via email, along with your PO, prior to shipping the cont

Best regards,

Pedro Gutierrez

Osaka Vacuum USA, Inc.

510-770-0100 x 109

*************************************************

our TP-1 TG390MCAB is 9 years old. What is the life expectancy of this turbo?

                        The Osaka maglev turbopumps are designed with a 100,000 hours(or ~ 10 operating years) life span but as you know most of our end-users are

                        running their Osaka maglev turbopumps in excess of 10+, 15+ years continuously.     The 100,000 hours design value is based upon the AL material being rotated at

                        the given speed.   But the design fudge factor have somehow elongated the practical life span.  

We should have the cost of new maglev & controller in next year budget. I  put the quote into the wiki.

 

                         

 

 

Attachment 1: our_controller_is_back.png
our_controller_is_back.png
  9550   Mon Jan 13 16:50:55 2014 SteveUpdateVACMaglev controller needs service

Quote:

 The date is correct on this monitor.

Last stored RGA scan data Dec 20, 2013

IFO pressure at CC1 5.8e-6 Torr

Valve configuration: Vacuum Normal, confirmable only by manual checking of position indicators and pressure gauge controllers  readouts

 

 The Osaka TG390MCAB maglev turbo pump's controller TC010M has passed the 40,000 hrs of operation. This triggered the " alarm" LED  warning light to come on. 

It is normal maintenance.  Maglev TP-1 is running perfectly.  Osaka will send us a loaner-controller that we can use while they do the std maintenance.

I'm thinking of ~ February to do this.

  9776   Wed Apr 2 16:34:15 2014 SteveUpdateVACMaglev controller needs service

Quote:

Quote:

 The date is correct on this monitor.

Last stored RGA scan data Dec 20, 2013

IFO pressure at CC1 5.8e-6 Torr

Valve configuration: Vacuum Normal, confirmable only by manual checking of position indicators and pressure gauge controllers  readouts

 

 The Osaka TG390MCAB maglev turbo pump's controller TC010M has passed the 40,000 hrs of operation. This triggered the " alarm" LED  warning light to come on. 

It is normal maintenance.  Maglev TP-1 is running perfectly.  Osaka will send us a loaner-controller that we can use while they do the std maintenance.

I'm thinking of ~ February to do this.

 We just received the loaner controller that will be swapped in it tomorrow morning.

The vacuum pressure will rise somewhat during this action.

  14189   Wed Aug 29 09:56:00 2018 SteveUpdateVACMaglev controller needs service

TP-1 Osaka maglev controller  [  model TCO10M,  ser V3F04J07 ]  needs maintenance. Alarm led  on indicating  that we need Lv2 service.

The turbo and the controller are in good working order.

*****************************

Hi Steve,

Our maintenance level 2 service price is $...... It consists of a complete disassembly of the controller for internal cleaning of all ICB’s, replacement of all main board capacitors, replacement of all internal cooling units, ROM battery replacement, re-assembly, and mandatory final testing to make sure it meets our factory specifications. Turnaround time is approximately 3 weeks.

  RMA 5686 has been assigned to Caltech’s returning TC010M controller. Attached please find our RMA forms. Complete and return them to us via email, along with your PO, prior to shipping the cont

Best regards,

Pedro Gutierrez

Osaka Vacuum USA, Inc.

510-770-0100 x 109

*************************************************

our TP-1 TG390MCAB is 9 years old. What is the life expectancy of this turbo?

                        The Osaka maglev turbopumps are designed with a 100,000 hours(or ~ 10 operating years) life span but as you know most of our end-users are

                        running their Osaka maglev turbopumps in excess of 10+, 15+ years continuously.     The 100,000 hours design value is based upon the AL material being rotated at

                        the given speed.   But the design fudge factor have somehow elongated the practical life span.  

We should have the cost of new maglev & controller in next year budget. I  put the quote into the wiki.

 

                         

 

  9834   Mon Apr 21 10:14:00 2014 SteveUpdateVACMaglev controller serviced

Quote:

 

 The loaner controller is swapped in. It has  520 Hz rotation speed.  This speed use to be 680 Hz with our old one.

 The  Maglev controller was serviced at Osaka Vacuum. It was swapped in this morning.

Attachment 1: ourControllerBack560Hz.png
ourControllerBack560Hz.png
  9782   Thu Apr 3 17:05:52 2014 SteveUpdateVACMaglev controller swapped

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

 The date is correct on this monitor.

Last stored RGA scan data Dec 20, 2013

IFO pressure at CC1 5.8e-6 Torr

Valve configuration: Vacuum Normal, confirmable only by manual checking of position indicators and pressure gauge controllers  readouts

 

 The Osaka TG390MCAB maglev turbo pump's controller TC010M has passed the 40,000 hrs of operation. This triggered the " alarm" LED  warning light to come on. 

It is normal maintenance.  Maglev TP-1 is running perfectly.  Osaka will send us a loaner-controller that we can use while they do the std maintenance.

I'm thinking of ~ February to do this.

 We just received the loaner controller that will be swapped in it tomorrow morning.

The vacuum pressure will rise somewhat during this action.

 The loaner controller is swapped in. It has  520 Hz rotation speed.  This speed use to be 680 Hz with our old one.

Attachment 1: loanerControllerIn.png
loanerControllerIn.png
  3431   Tue Aug 17 23:59:46 2010 KatharineUpdateelogMaglev update

Katharine, Sharmila

Update: 
We haven't been posting in the elog regularly, for which we are very sorry.  We have been taking notes in our log books, but we ought to have posted here as well.  We apologize and now present an overview of what we've been up to.

Some time ago, we created a Simulink model to predict the response of our system, but for the model to be useful we needed to include approximately correct gains for each block in the diagram, including the magnet force and coil force gradients and OSEM "gain." We also needed to better quantify the 1x1 levitation.


Adjusting the potentiometers:

The circuit which converts current to voltage in the Quadrant maglev control has a variable resistor. This is useful as it gives us a way to zero the current when the levitated object is in the equilibrium position. It was done as follows. The output voltage from the circuit converting current to voltage is fed into the oscilloscope. The voltage values for zero and complete blockage of the LED is noted(say 2V). We adjust the resistor to make the voltage output to be V when the flag completey bolcks the LED. This gives a zero current when the flag is in the equilibrium position.

OSEM Calibration:

The OSEM works by blocking the light that goes into the photodetector from the LED by a flag. To simulate the model we had on simulink, we needed to find what the gain of the OSEM was. The gain of the OSEM is the current it gives per unit displaccement of the flag. To determine this we attached a micrometer to the OSEM flag. The micrometer was long eneough to push the flag to completey block the OSEM. We connected the output of the PD test point (which was the voltage after the photodiode current was converted into voltage) to the oscilloscope. We noted down the voltage difference in the oscilloscope with a fixed reference for different positons of the flag. From the oscilloscope output, we were able to get the PD current. We then selected a linear region of the plot of PD current vs flag position(which is usually in the middle) to fit the graph with a straight line. The slope gives the OSEM gain.

Magnet strength
    We need to know about the relative strengths of our magnets (levitated and fixed in the coil) in order to do magnet matching.  We used a Gaussmeter to measure the field from each coil magnet at  ~2 mm away from the center (the probe was fixed to an aluminum block, so that the tip had the same vertical separation for each of the four fixed plate magnets).  We labeled each of the four magnets and calculated the field at this distance to be 0.206 kG, 0.210 kG, 0.212 kG, and 0.206 kG,  respectively, for coils 1-4.  However, each measurement had a rather large uncertainty of 0.01 kG, because the field strength varied a lot with position on the magnet, and the measurements were limited by how well we could align the probe tip with the center.

Fixed Plate Magnets - magnetic field (kG)           
meas't    1        2        3        4
1       0.205    0.213    0.209    0.204
2       0.211    0.219    0.223    0.207
3       0.199    0.205    0.211    0.201
4       0.207    0.203    0.206    0.213
average 0.206    0.210    0.212    0.206
stdev   0.005    0.007    0.007    0.005

    We also planned to take the same measurements for the coil magnets.  We noted that the magnetic field varied a lot depending on the probe's location, but not in the way we would expect.  At the edges of the magnet, the field was much stronger (~2 kG) than at the center (~0.5 kG).  We initially thought this might have to do with how we were holding the probe -- for instance, if we measured the force towards the edge by moving the tip all the way across the center of the magnet, there might be some kind of integration effect which does not accurately represent the field.   However, we measured the field at the edge with the probe across the magnet and also with the probe, so this is clearly not the case.

    We also noticed that the cylindrical magnet we used for single-magnet levitation was not attracted to the coil magnets in the way we expected.    Though the cylindrical magnet was oriented so that it was strongly attracted to the coil magnet, it was attracted more to the edges than the center, so that it seemed to be repelled by the centers of the coil magnets.  Though this follows somewhat from the Gaussmeter readings, it is not the behavior we would expect when considering the coil magnets as magnetic dipoles.

Attempting single-magnet levitation for each coil:
    We attempted to levitate single magnets using all four OSEM/coil combinations.   We assembled the magnets and OSEMs using Haixing's mount, and, adjusting the height of the OSEM plate, attempted to levitate the single magnet with a flag with which we were previously successful.   This was completely unsuccessful using all of the coil magnets (and when we tried to levitate using the south magnets, we flipped the cylindrical magnet's orientation).
    Since we had already achieved this levitation, this seemed particularly wrong.  We disassembled the fixed OSEM plate in Haixing's mount and built a cursory OSEM mount, similar to the one we had used for levitation before, and did not fix it in place.  After a little experimenting with the height and position of the OSEM, we were able to achieve levitation with coils 1 and 4.
    We noted the levitation magnet separation (~4.5 mm) and the height of the OSEMs at which levitation was achieved (147 +/- 1 mm for coil 1, 146 +/- 1 mm for coil 4).  Then, we reassembled Haixing's OSEM plate and tried to levitate the cylindrical magnet at coil 1 and coil 4, respectively, adjusting the OSEM plate so that the height of the OSEM of interest was the same as when we achieved single-magnet levitation.  This was unsuccessful, which leads us to believe that there is some alignment issue between the fixed coil magnets and the OSEMs in the mount,  possibly due to the unusual field from the fixed coil magnets.
    We also were completely unable to levitate using coils 2 and 3.  Coils 1 and 4 have identical circuit paths, whereas 2 and 3 differ slightly.  With more time, we need to investigate this further.

Force-distance measurements
    We also measured the repulsive force between the cylindrical magnet and the coil magnets as a function of separation.  We fixed each of the coil magnets, individually, on a stack of sticky notes on a precision balance (the stack of sticky notes was to prevent the coil magnet from interacting with the digital balance) and zeroed the balance.  We then fixed the cylindrical magnet (oriented so that it would be repelled by the coil magnet) to a teflon rod, and mounted the rod so that we could slide it up and down a long cylindrical post.  Noting the position of the rod and cylindrical magnet, we were able to measure the repulsive force as a function of separation (see Excel graph).
    However, because the magnetic field varied so much with position on the coil magnet, there is a lot of uncertainty associated with these measurements.    We tried to keep the cylindrical magnet in the same horizontal position, but it was impossible to keep the exact position while sliding the mounted teflon rod up and down the posts.    In spite of this, we fit the linear region of this graph, near the equilibrium separation of the magnets, for a very approximate measurement of the magnetic field force gradient. The slope gives the force per unit distance of the magnet.

Coil-force measurement
    We measured the force by changing the current through the coil of wire, using a very similar setup as described above.  Since we are concerned with the magnetic force as a function of current, not separation, we fixed the teflon rod so that the cylindrical magnet and coil magnet were separated by ~4.5 mm, the approximate levitation separation of the two magnets.   We then completely blocked the OSEM with the flag, creating a maximum PD current, and measured the coil current using an oscilloscope when the LED was fully blocked and the current when we removed the flag.  At the same time, we measured the repulsive force by looking at the precision balance.
    Unfortunately, we had difficulty taking further readings, because our circuit starting behaving oddly (described below).  Otherwise, we would repeat this process by blocking the OSEM LED by various amount and measuring the change in coil current, and the corresponding reading on the precision balance.   However, the force should be linearly dependent on coil current, and we ought to know one other point: when there is no current in the coil, there should be no magnetic force from the coil to the magnet.  Using this information, we can determine the slope of magnetic force by coil current, but it's not very reliable as we have only one real data point.
    One additional aspect makes this reading questionable.  When we switched on the power supply, the reading on the precision balance changed, before we had blocked the OSEM LED at all. Since no light was blocked, theoretically no photocurrent should be coming from the PD and there should not be a coil current from the feedback, so the force should not be changing. We are not sure why this is.

Recent Circuit Behavior
    Some noise in the circuit appears to be hugely amplified when the gains of each coil are high, resulting in a high frequency signal of a few hundred kHz.  When the gains are all sufficiently high, this noise can saturate the coil current so that when PD current changes, there is no visible change in coil current.
    On Saturday, we noticed some odd behavior from the circuit.  We hooked up the oscilloscope so we could see both PD current and coil current, and were very surprised that the PD current signal was oscillating and continually changing even when no flag was inside the OSEM.   This was also affecting the coil current as well.  We thought this might be due to some component burning out in our circuit, or RC coupling somewhere, but we did not get a chance to pinpoint the origin of this problem.

Modeling
Initially we had attempted to model the force-distance treating the two cylindrical magnets as dipoles, and finding the attraction/repulsions between the four distinct poles.  However, the resulting equation did not have a maximum, which is what we got in our measured values, so it seems this is not the best approach.  We would like to try the current loop approximation.

Attachment 1: repulsiveforce.png
repulsiveforce.png
Attachment 2: OSEMcalibration.png
OSEMcalibration.png
Attachment 3: OSEMslopes.png
OSEMslopes.png
  2193   Fri Nov 6 12:56:30 2009 HaixingUpdateSUSMagnet has been levitated

  In this experiment, we used a feedback control to create a stable trap for a NdFeB permanent magnet. The block diagram is the following:

block_diagram.PNG

 

 

The displacement of the magnet is sensed by the Hall-effect sensor, whose output voltage is proportional to the magnetic flux produced

by the permanent magnet. It has a flat response within the frequencies we are interested in. It is driven by a 5 V power supplier and its

output has a DC voltagle of 2.5 V. We subtracted the DC voltage and used the resulting signal as the error signal. This was

simply achieved by using two channels "A" and "B". The output is "A-B" with a gain equal to one. We then put the error

signal into another  SR560 as a low-pass filter with a gain of 100 above 30 Hz. We used the "DC" coupling modes in both

preamplifers. The output is then used to drive a coil. The coil has a dimension of 1.5 inch in diameter and 2 inch in length.

The inductance of the coil is around 0.5 H and the resistance is 4.7 Om. Therefore, it has a corner frequency aournd 10/2pi Hz.

The coil has a iron core inside to enhance the DC force to the permanent magnet. The low-frequency 1/f response of the magnet is produced

by the eddy current damping of the aluminum plane that is below the magnet. This 1/f response is essential for a stable configuration. In the

next stage, we will remove the aluminum plane, and instead we will use a filter to create similar transfer function. At high-frequencies, it behaves as 

a free-mass and has a 1/f^2 response. Finally, the magnet is stably levitated.

 

Attachment 1: DSC_0964.JPG
DSC_0964.JPG
  12328   Sun Jul 24 03:43:56 2016 ericqUpdateGeneralMagnet positioning

When Koji and I were gluing magnets to ETMY, we decided to position the side magnet based on the empirically observed offsets from the standoff groove seen at other side magnet locations. Specifically, we figured that the magnet should be glued 1.25mm closer to the HR surface than the wire groove.

However, Steve has told me that he believed that this distance should be something like 0.5mm. 

I used the 1.25mm figure when gluing the ETMX side magnets, which now do not align well to their OSEM mounts. While it is certainly possible that I made an error when shimming the fixture, I think it is also possible that this figure was incorrect. 

Sadly, after poring through the DCC and various elogs, I have not been able to come up with a definitive answer on what this offset should actually be.

One approach is to examine the suspension tower dimensions. I.e. when subject only to gravity, the wire loop should lie in the plane of the back face of the top block of the suspension, as it is constrained by the clamps. Thus, the standoff grooves also lie in this plane. The center of the side OSEM mounting holes are about 1.64mm in front of this plane, which is larger than the 1.25mm figure that Koji and I came up with. Examining the picture Gautam posted of the marginal magnet/OSEM alignement, we see that this figure would in fact move the magnet in the wrong direction...

ELOGs in which the intitial side magnet gluing and fixture shimming are detailed do not reference the absolute position of the side magnet, nor do they include any pictures of their fixture setup. (Some links for the curious: 2652 2654 2668)

The DCC isn't much help either, as it is not clear what version of the gluing fixture we actually have. There is a drawing for a 40m specific version, but it includes swappable side-magnet-pickle-picker-slots to achieve different positions for different (circa 2001) optics; this is not the kind of fixture we currently have in our possesion. (https://dcc.ligo.org/D010131) I have discovered that some versions of this fixture (https://dcc.ligo.org/d990168) include an assumed 0.5deg wedge angle and thus position the two side slots differently. Although the fixture we have has no identifying marks on it whatsoever (naturally), I measured the two side slots to be different in axial position by roughly 0.6mm, which is consistent with a 0.5deg wedge. Furthermore, the sign of this difference indicates that this fixture ring is designed for the opposite wedge orientation than our ETMs, which have a 2.5deg wedge, making this fixture wrong by 3deg (which is ~4mm over the diameter of the optic). 

We did not account for this for either ETMX or ETMY, so this is another source of error, but this does not give us much guidance on what the real absolute magnet position should be.

  1933   Fri Aug 21 17:28:50 2009 Kevin, ranaSummaryPEMMagnetic Field Measurements Around the Lab

This goal of this test was to measure and map the AC (at 60 Hz) and DC magnetic fields around the interferometer. I've attached the final products which were drawn up with Google SketchUp.

The notes on the maps make them more or less self explanatory: for each numbered point there's an X, Y, and Z measurement produced by the magnetometer. For the AC numbers I measured the Peak-to-Peak value, while for the DC I simply measured the Mean. The magnetometer's axes were always oriented about the same way, with the X arrow on the magnetometer pointing north. I tried to keep variables such as the lights constant as much as possible (they were all on for most measurements, with the exception of a few noted DC ones) and all measurements had the top of the magnetometer at about 32 inches.  The map is pretty close to scale and all the walls and numbered locations were measured out (though the location of objects and the laser tubes is somewhat estimated). I added "landmarks" in the room, which were pretty much the laser tubes, computer racks, and ISC tables.

For each laser room measurement I also took a screenshot using the oscilloscope as a means of recording the shape of the wave for each measurement. Ch1 corresponds to the X value, Ch2 to the Y, and Ch3 to the Z. The screenshots are numbered 1-29 corresponding to the numbers on the map. The zip folders containing the screenshots can be found on the wiki:  PEM:Magnetometers

I should also mention that there is no point #24 and accordingly no 24 screenshot. I realized after I was done that I had messed up the location of that one and instead of risking bad data decided to just remove it.

I decided on the location of the points mainly based on the location of outlets in the room (since I had to plug in the oscilloscope for the AC numbers to set it to 60 Hz). After an initial pass of the room, I went back and filled in some of the larger gaps by moving the magnetometer as far as I could while the oscilloscope remained plugged in to the wall. I used the same points for DC numbers.

Prior to measuring the laser room, I measured the field in other rooms as well. I have

  • AC numbers and screenshots for the control room and the adjoining office room.

  • DC numbers for the entry room and the office room, not including the control room. The X-axis arrow is pointed south (instead of north) for these numbers.

These numbers were sort of a warm up for me to figure out the process and how I would go about recording my data. Since they're not in really important locations and aren't guaranteed to be accurate, I decided not to map them, though the screenshots are still on this Dell Inspiron 1300 Laptop and the measurements in my notebook.

Here are the settings I used on the oscilloscope for all measurements (I merely changed the Vertical Coupling between DC and AC depending on what I was measuring):

  • Impedance: 1M ohms

  • Bandwidth: Full

  • Probe Setup: Voltage 1X

  • Trigger Type: Edge

  • Trigger Coupling: DC

  • Fast Trig: Normal

  • Trigger Mode: Auto

  • Trigger Source: AC Line

  • Acquire Mode: 512 Average

 The notebook that I used contains some additional info that I didn't include in the map, most importantly more precise descriptions of where each of the points is located and the measured distance between each of them (as well as slight changes I made to my measured distances in order to make the room a rectangle; the changes are slight enough that they shouldn't have any real effect on the data).

Since Kevin used our 3-axis Bartington Fluxgate magnetometer, we can guess that we can convert his voltage measurements (below) into magnetic field
by using the manual's guess of 10 uT /V or 10 V/Gauss. This is probably ok at the factor of 2 level, but one day we should calibrate it with a coil.

The punchline is that the DC fields in the lab are roughly what we expect from the Earth's field plus the rebar in our floors: ~1 Gauss. The 60 Hz fields are ~50-500 nT peak-peak.

Attachment 1: AC-field.png
AC-field.png
Attachment 2: DC-field.png
DC-field.png
  2307   Fri Nov 20 11:32:48 2009 HaixingUpdateSUSMagnetic levitation

I added an integrator to increase the gain at low frequencies (below 5 Hz). In addition, I increased

the band of the differentiator. The schematics for both integrator and differentiator are the following:

IntDiff.PNG

The magnetic is stably levitated.

S8007340.jpg

I turned off the light to get rid of 60Hz noise on the photodiode. I tried to measured the

open-loop transfer function of this setup, but somehow the SR560 is always saturate

when I injected the signal from SR785, which produces some weird results at

low-frequencies.

 

In addition, I found out that when the light is turned on, the levitation

can be stable even when I inverted the sign of the control loop. The control signal

on the osciloscope is the following:

S8007333.jpg

 

This oscillator is around 120 Hz, which should be  the harmonics of 60 Hz from light pollution.

I am not sure exactly why it is stable when the control-loop sign is flipped. This could

be similar to the Pauli trap in the iron trap, because the coil not only provides a force

but also provides the rigidity. The sign of such rigidity depends on the sign of the control

current. If such oscillating rigidity changes at a frequency much higher than the response

frequency of the magnet, it will stablize  the system simply by significantly increasing

the inertial of the magnet.More investigations are essential to completely understand it.

 

For information about Pauli trap, one can look at the wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadrupole_ion_trap

 

 

 

  691   Thu Jul 17 16:39:58 2008 Max JonesUpdateDAQMagnetometer Installed
Today I installed the magnetometer near the beam splitter chamber. It is located on the BSC chamber at head height on the inner part of the interferometer (meaning I had to crawl under the arms to install it). I don't think I disturbed anything during installation but I think that's it's probably prudent to tell everyone that I was back there just in case. I plan to run 3 BNC cables (one for each axis) from the magnetometer to the DAQ input either tonight or tomorrow. Suggestions are appreciated. - Max.
  2629   Mon Feb 22 21:07:26 2010 JenneUpdateCOCMagnets glued to ITMX

[Kiwamu, Jenne]

The magnets + dumbbell standoffs have been glued to ITMX.  We're waiting overnight for them to dry. 

Since I broke one of the magnet + dumbbells on the ITMY set, we've glued another dumbbell to the 6th magnet, and it should be ready for us to glue to ITMY tomorrow, once ITMX is dry and out of the fixture.  This doesn't put us behind schedule at all, so that's good.

We had been concerned that there might be a problem with the arm of the guiderod fixture being glued to ITMY, but it was fine after all.  Everything is going smoothly so far.

 

[Zach, Mott]

Zach and Mott are almost prepared to start cutting the viton for the earthquake stops.  We need 2 full sets by Wednesday morning, when we expect to begin hanging the ITMs.

  3777   Mon Oct 25 11:39:06 2010 JenneUpdateSUSMagnets glued to PRM
This morning I glued the magnets to the PRM. Now we wait, and tomorrow afternoon (at the earliest), Suresh and I can balance the PRM.
Attachment 1: StatusTable.png
StatusTable.png
  14628   Tue May 21 00:15:21 2019 gautamUpdateSUSMain objectives of vent achieved (?)

Summary:

  1. ETMY now shows four suspension eigenmodes, with sensible phasing between signals for the angular DoFs. However, the eigenfrequencies have shifted by ~10% compared to 16 May 2019.
  2. PIT and YAW for ETMY as witnessed by the Oplev are now much better separated.
  3. ITMY can have its bias voltage set to zero and back to nominal alignment without it getting stuck.
  4. The sensing matrix for ETMY that I get doesn't make much sense to me. Nevertheless, the optic damps even with the "naive" input matrix.

So the primary vent objectives have been achieved, I think. 


Details:

  1. ETMY free-swinging data after adjusting LL and SIDE coils such that these were closer to half-light values
    • Attachment #1 - oplev witnessing the angular motion of the optic. PIT and YAW are well decoupled.
    • Attachment #2 - complex TF between the suspension coils. There is still considerable imbalance between coils, but at least the phasing of the signals make sense for PIT and YAW now.
    • Attachment #3 - DoFs sensed using the naive and optimized sensing matrices.
    • Attachment #4 - sensing matrix that the free swinging data tells me to implement. If the local damping works with the naive input matrix but we get better diagonality in the actuation matrix, I think we may as well stick to the naive input matrix.
  2. BR mode coupling minimization:
    • As alluded to in my previous elog, I tried to reduce the bounce mode coupling into the shadow sensor by rotating the OSEM in its holder.
    • However, I saw negligible change in the coupling, even going through a full pi radian rotation. I imagine the coupling will change smoothly so we should have seen some change in one of the ~15 positions I sampled in between, but I saw none.
    • The anomalously high coupling of the bounce mode to the shadow sensor readout is telling us something - I'm just not sure what yet.
  3. ITMY:
    • The offender was the LL OSEM, whose rotational orientation was causing the magnet to get stuck to the teflon part of the OSEM coil when the bias voltage was changed by a sufficiently large amount.
    • I rectified this (required adjustment of all 5 OSEMs to get everything back to half light again).
    • After this, I was able to zero the bias voltage to the PIT/YAW DoFs and not have the optic get stuck - huzzah 😀 
    • While I have the chance, I'm collecting the free-swinging data to see what kind of sensing matrix this optic yields.

Tomorrow and later this week:

  1. Prepare ETMY for first contact cleaning to remove the residual piece. 
    • Drag wipe the HR surface with dehydrated acetone 
    • Apply F.C. as usual, inspect the HR face after peeling for improvement if any.
    • This will give us a chance to practise the F.C.ing with the optic EQ-stopped (moving cage etc).
  2. Confirm ETMY actuation makes sense.
    • Use the green beam for an ASS proxy implementation?
  3. High quality close out pictures of OSEMs and general chamber layout.
  4. Anything else? Any other tests we can do to convince ourselves the suspensions are well-behaved?

While we have the chance:

  1. Fix the IPANG alignment? Because the TT drift/hysteresis problem is still of unknown cause.
  2. Check that the AS beam is centered on OMs 1-6?
  3. Recover the 70% AS light that is being diverted to the OMC?

Unrelated to this work: megatron is responding to ping but isn't ssh-able. I also noticed earlier to day that the IMC autolocker blinky wasn't blinking. So it probably requries a hard reboot. I left the lab for tonight so I'll reboot it tomorrow, but no nds data access in the meantime... 

Attachment 1: etmy_oplevs_20190520.pdf
etmy_oplevs_20190520.pdf
Attachment 2: ETMY_cplxTF.pdf
ETMY_cplxTF.pdf
Attachment 3: ETMY_diagComp.pdf
ETMY_diagComp.pdf
Attachment 4: Screen_Shot_2019-05-21_at_12.37.08_AM.png
Screen_Shot_2019-05-21_at_12.37.08_AM.png
  15279   Wed Mar 18 21:43:26 2020 gautamUpdateVACMain vol pressure jump

There was a jump in the main volume pressure at ~6pm PDT yesterday. The cause is unknown, but the pressure doesn't seem to be coming back down (but also isn't increasing alarmingly).

I wanted to look at the RGA scans to see if there were any clues as to what changed, but looks like the daily RGA scans stopped updating on Dec 24 2019. The c0rga machine responsible for running these scans doesn't respond to ssh. Not much to be done until the lockdown is over i guess...

Attachment 1: VacPresJump.png
VacPresJump.png
  15280   Wed Mar 18 22:10:41 2020 KojiUpdateVACMain vol pressure jump

I was in the lab at the time. But did not notice anything (like turbo sound etc). I was around ETMX/Y (1X9, 1Y4) rack and SUS rack (1X4/5), but did not go into the Vac region.

  14436   Tue Feb 5 19:30:14 2019 gautamUpdateVACMain volume at 20 uTorr

Pumpdown looks healthy, so I'm leaving the TPs on overnight. At some point, we should probably get the RGA going again. I don't know that we have a "reference" RGA trace that we can compare the scan to, should check with Steve. The high power (1 W) beam has not yet been sent into the vacuum, we should probably add the interlock condition that shuts off the PSL shutter before that.

Attachment 1: PD83.png
PD83.png
  11346   Fri Jun 5 11:59:59 2015 ericqBureaucracyGeneralMaintenance Tasks, IFO upgrades

At wednesday's meeting, Rana, Koji, Steve, and I started making a list of maintenence tasks that should be done/checked on a regular basis. The actual scheduling of these has not yet been considered. They include:

  • N2 Tank pressure / cylinder replacement
  • Headlamp, walkie talkie battery recharge
  • Workstation software updates
  • Coffee bean and filters
  • Multimeter battery levels
  • Sorensen DC power supply voltage settings and current draws
  • UPS' status (Vacuum, NFS host, workstations)
  • SR560s, battery powered scopes plugged in
  • Rack Fuses intact
  • Take pictures of electronics racks, optical tables
  • Replace PSL HEPA filter

Next, we brainstormed work that can be done to improve the interferometer performance, and what order/precedence they should take. 

In the end, it was decided that the plan for the next few weeks was to focus on improving the ALS noise levels, and, more importantly, seeking to make the performance more consistent. We need to know what is limiting us, and what we extent we can expect to improve things. To this end, I am working on reviving a ALS noise budget; using the noise budget from the green locking paper to inform a simulinkNB kind of thing.

Here are all of the items we listed during this brainstorming session.

Some near-term/priority tasks are:

  • Installing the accelerometers near MC1 and 2
  • Installing green steering PZT mirrors at the Y end table, commission dither alignment
  • Improving the X end green mode matching
  • ALS noise budgeting
  • Upgrade the realtime system to RCG v2.9

More down the line, other things we thought about were:

  • Cleanup of bench power supplies (FSS box has one, where else?)
  • Fixing the ETMX suspension issues 
  • Upgrade SOS suspension code to the appropriate aLIGO block
  • Upgrade to the green PDH electronics
  • Understanding / tuning the FSS servo laser PZT vs. PC crossover
  • Undestanding / tuning the 11MHz vs 55MHz modulation phase
  • Replacing the slow vxworks machines with the Acromag setup Aiden has set up for the CTN lab
  • QPD upgrade
  • New/better green beatbox
  • Finalize the manifestation of the IR beat control (Freq counter vs. fast DFD)
  • Explore the idea of using an analog output of the ALS beatbox as fast input to the CM board
  • Replace triple resonant EOM driving circuit with double resonant one
  • X end table layout/enclosure upgrade
  7075   Thu Aug 2 00:43:55 2012 JenneUpdateASSMajor cleanup of the ASS model

[Jamie, Jenne]

We are trying to figure out what the story is with the ASS, and in order to make it more human parse-able, we cleaned up the c1ass.mdl. 

So far, we have made no changes to how the signals are routed.  The local oscillators from each lockin still get summed, and go directly to the individual optics, and the demodulated signals from each lockin go through the sensing matrix, the DoF filters, then the control output matrix, and then on to the individual optics.  So far, so good.

Much of the cleanup work involved making a big library part, which is then called once for PIT and once for YAW in the ass top level, rather than have 2 code-copies, which give Jamie conniptions.  Inside the library part GoTo and From tags were used, rather than having all the lines cross over one another in a big spaghetti mess.

One of the big actual changes to the ass was some name changes. Rather than having mysterious "ASS-LOCKIN(1-30)", they are now named something like "ASS-PIT_LOCKIN_ETMY_TRY", indicating that this is in the pitch set, actuating on ETMY, and looking at TRY for the demodulated signal.  The "DOF" channels are similar to what they were, although we would like to change them in the future.....more on this potential change later.  Previously they were "ASS-DOF(1-10)", but now they are "ASS-PIT_DOF(1-5)" and "ASS-YAW_DOF(1-5)". This channel naming, while it makes things make more sense, and is easier to understand, means that all of the ASS scripts need to be fixed.  However, they all needed updating / upgrading anyway, so this isn't the end of the world.

This channel name fixing also included updating names of IPC (shmem/dolphin/rfm things) blocks, which required matching changes in the SUS, RFM and LSC models.  All 4 models (ASS, SUS, RFM, LSC) were recompiled and installed.  They all seem fine, except there appears to be a dolphin naming mismatch between OAF and SUS that showed up when the SUS was recompiled, which presumably it hadn't been in a while.  We need to figure this out, but maybe not tonight.  Den, if you have time, it would be cool if you could take a look at the OAF and SUS models to make sure the names match when sending signals back and forth.

______________________

We also had a long chat about the deeper meaning of the ASS. 

What should we be actuating on, and what should we be sensing?  A potential thought is to rename our DOF channels to actual DoF names: input axis translation, input axis angle, cavity axis translation, cavity axis angle.  Then actuate the dither lines on a cavity degree of freedom, sense the influence on TRX, TRY and an LSC PD (as is currently done), then actuate on the cavity degree of freedom.

Right now, it looks like the actuation is for individual optics, the sensing is the influence on TRX, TRY and an LSC PD, then actuate on a cavity degree of freedom.  So the only change with the new idea is that we actuate in the DoF basis, not the optics basis.  So the Lockin local oscillators would go through the control output matrix.  This makes more sense in my head, but Jamie and I wanted to involve more people in the conversation before we commit. 

The next question would be: how do we populate the control output matricies?  Valera (or someone) put something in there, but I couldn't find anything on the elog about how those values were measured/calculated/came-to-be.  Any ideas?  If we want to dither and then push on isolated degrees of freedom, we need to know how much moving of which optics affects each DoF.  Is this something we should do using only geometry, and our knowledge of optic placements and relative distances, or is this measurable?

  7081   Thu Aug 2 23:31:04 2012 JenneUpdateASSMajor cleanup of the ASS model

Jamie re-redid the ASS model a few hours ago.

I have just compiled it, and restarted c1ass.  (The model from last night is currently called c1ass3.mdl)  I had to delete and re-put inthe goto and from tags for the LSC signal coming in from the shmem.  For some reason, it kept claiming that the inputs using the from tags were not connected, even when I redid the connections.  Finally deleting and dragging in new goto and from tags made the model happy enough to compile.  Whatever.  I'm going to let Jamie do the svn-ing, since he's the one who made the changes.  Before I had figured out that it was the tags, I was concerned that the shmem was unhappy, so there was no signal connecting to the input of the goto tag, and that was somehow bad....anyhow, I recompiled the LSC model to re-create the shmem sender, but that had no effect, since that wasn't the problem.

The change from last night is that now the library parts are by DoF.  There is only one matrix in each library part, before the servo filters. Now we can DC-actuate on a single mode (ETM or ITM, pitch or yaw), and see how it affects all 4 sensors (the demodulated signals from the lockins). We need to measure the sensing matrix to go from the several sensors to the servo input.

  4993   Tue Jul 19 23:39:11 2011 Jamie, JenneUpdateLSCMajor overhaul of LSC rack; binary switching of whitening filters now working

Yesterday we started going through the LSC binary whitening switching to make sure the new switching control in the LSC model was working.  Jenne and I hooked up a fancy home-brew white noise generator [0] into all of the LSC whitening filter inputs and started switching the whitening filters to see what would happen.  We found that some of the channels were switching, but the majority were not, or worse yet switching the wrong channels.  Upon closer inspection, and after finally finding the LSC wiring schematic, we found that the LSC rack cross-connect/back-plane cabling was pretty much a complete mess, and didn't at all correspond to the channel layout in Suresh's diagram.

Given that the back-plane wiring had to be almost completely redone, we decided to completely redo the LSC electronics layout, to be a little more self-consistent and to use the given space more efficiently.  We'll post an updated electronics drawing soon.  The LSC model was also updated to reflect the new layout.

We then went through and verified that all of the whitening switching was working with the new layout.  As described previously, the first filter in the PD input filter bank is used to control the switching.  We did indeed verify that all the switching is working, but we noticed that switching logic was inverted, such that the whitening filter engaged when the filter was turned off.  This was fixed in the model and all the switching logic was verified to be working as expected.

Everything has now been hooked back up, but we need to verify that we're getting all of the PD demodulated RF and DC outputs as expected.  We need to check the RF phases, as some of the RF cable lengths have changed.

[0] a 50k resistor

Links:

 

  14930   Thu Oct 3 12:08:47 2019 gautamUpdateGeneralMake the Jenne-laser setup fiber-coupled

I propose the following re-organization of the PDFR measurement breadboard. We have all the parts on hand, just needs ~30mins of setup work and some characterization afterwards. The fiber beamsplitter will not be PM, but for this measurement, I don't think that matters (the patch fiber from the diode laser head isn't PM anyways). We have one spare 1 GHz BW NF1611 that is fiber coupled (used to live on the ITMY in-air table, and is (conveniently) labelled "REF DET", but I'm not sure what the function of this was). In any case, we have at least 1 free-space NF1611 photodiode available as well. I suggest confirming that the FC version works as expected by calibrating against the free space PD first.

Update 245pm: Implemented, see Attachment #2. Aaron is testing it now, and will post the characterization results.

Attachment 1: PDFR_tabletop.pdf
PDFR_tabletop.pdf
Attachment 2: IMG_8014.JPG
IMG_8014.JPG
  14931   Thu Oct 3 14:32:37 2019 ranaUpdateGeneralMake the Jenne-laser setup fiber-coupled

I'm curious to see if we really need the 1611, or if we can calibrate the diode laser vs. the 1611 one time and then just use that calibration to get the absolute cal for the DUT.

ELOG V3.1.3-